However, the "No transition" option is an option that is comparatively
less palatable for other stakeholders than for us, one stakeholder of
which being the Board/staff. It cannot be seen to be the one preventing
a transition. So you should lean towards more of a hard line stance imho.
For us, there is no danger of a status quo, imho. NTIA's stance on the
matter is good for the long term, and would the process falter that they
would come back for a second try later.
On 16/12/2015 3:48 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> My response would be that there is no reason to assume that the board
> comments will be accepted. If they are not accepted, and we end up
> with CCWG’s 3^rd draft, on net I would vote for it in preference to no
> transition. The strengthened IRP and improved mission statement with
> explicit limitations are the reasons I would go for it.
>
> If the board comments are accepted, and we get no inspection, an
> eviscerated mission limitation, and no respect for human rights, I
> could be swayed to go against it.
>
> The presence of GAC in the Sole Designator mechanism is disturbing,
> and NCSG is indicating to the CCWG that it does not support that.
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *David Post
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:55 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: The CCWG Accountability Proposal -- Should It Be Rejected
>
>
> It does appear to be a particularly bad combination of (a) a proposal
> that has itself been considerably watered down, and (b) a Board that
> is suggesting that even that is too /strong,/and needs to be weakened
> further.
>
> David
>
>
> At 08:44 PM 12/14/2015, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> At the risk of stirring the pot, I want to ask the community
> whether or not the accountability proposal has been so watered
> down that the NCSG ought to oppose it outright and, concurrently,
> seek agreement from the Commercial users such that the gNSO was
> opposed to the transition in its current form. If I were to tally
> the reasons to oppose the current draft they would include:
>
> · Enhanced GAC role through the 2/3 vote rule and there
> membership in the Empowered Community
> · Incomplete rights of inspection
> · Continued board opposition to human rights and mission
> statement as drafted
> · Process fouls in any number of ways, most recently in the
> overly short 21-day comment period on what the Co-Chairs say is
> the “final report”
> · Enhanced role of ACs in the empowered community to the
> detriment of the SOs where policy actually resides (this is above
> and beyond the GAC issue already noted)
>
> I could go on, but frankly, for myself, the proposal seems to have
> fallen sufficiently short that I would probably “vote” no, if
> votes were being counted. It seems to me that someone needs to
> say that out loud ….
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
> 509 C St. NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/>
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
> []
> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>
>
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>book (Jefferson's
> Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
> <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0>publications etc.
> http://www.davidpost.com
> <http://www.davidpost.com%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/>
> *******************************
>
|